THE FOLLOWING IS MY PAPER ABOUT THE ON-GOING DEBATE OF VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Camilo Diez
CCT205H5
Dr. Gail Benick and Michael Jones
February 5th, 2009
Video Game Violence: The Ongoing Debate
The Debate (Parents Side):
Children, kids, and teenagers in North America make up a generous part of the consumers for one of the most profitable industries: the popular Video industry; last year alone bringing in a record breaking 21.3 billion dollars (USA TODAY). Though the young population may be what they call their consumers, it is for the most part their parents that pay for the video games and consoles. This is why after video game developers decided to go from Mario bros. to Duke Nukem (or similar games); parents became more aware of what kinds of violence their kids were being exposed to. Just like any war between countries, the kids were stuck in the middle as their parents fought to take down some games of the shelves such as Grand Theft Auto because it is “Extremely violent and wildly popular”, while developers tried to contain the parents (cbsnews.com). In the meanwhile the government trying to satisfy both sides, decided to come out with a set of regulation and game ratings called the “E.S.R.B (Entertainment Software Rating Board)” (esrb.org).
The restrictions were satisfactory for the most part as it forced video game retail stores to only sell games depending on the age group that the young person was part of. Even after coming to a somewhat peaceful conclusion, parents and scholars today still argue that video games continue to become more and more violent. They argue that game violence is reflected on the viewers and it can be dangerous as U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said “its among the top three causes of family violence” (McMaster University).
The Debate (Video Game Developers):
For the most part, video game developers argue that the visual representations, or graphics of people, are simply to entertain the mind from stress and offer an escape to an alternate reality. Basically, what they create is for the purpose of entertainment, it is not to train children to kill people, or to teach teens about how cool it can be to be in the army. A reason why video game developers don’t get side tracked with allegations of all games being violent is because “positive aspects of gaming - creativity, community, self-esteem, problem-solving - are somehow less visible to nongamers”(wired.com). Moreover, video game companies complied with placing ratings on the boxes and warning parents about the contents of the game, so why are parents still buying violent games for their kids? It can only be the doing of parents or stores that are not following the rules and laws, therefore they Developers are not responsible for what happens to kids when they get their hands on a copy of Call of Duty 5 or Left 4 dead. Now the question is, how can any mistakes or arguments be settled so that everyone is happy?
The Rating system (E.S.R.B):
The rating system E.S.R.B is the main non-profit organization that tries to control the content in computer and console games. The E.S.R.B tries to inform, “consumers, especially parents, [so they] can make an informed purchase decision” (esrb.org). Even though the company has made a huge impact on the purchase of video games, because they place rating symbols and content descriptors, it is still not 100% enforced by the law for stores or parents to follow them. The rating symbols are simple and easy to follow, the list goes as such:
“ESRB Rating Symbols
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
RATING PENDING
Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)”
(esrb.org)
The rating symbols are in the most part based on the age of the consumer, yet with the complexity of content in video games today it seem as though the descriptions/ratings are vague. At the beginning most games came with just a rating symbol but because it was not enough to inform parents about what their kids are about to play the E.S.R.B decided to place content descriptors at the back of all video games. A few of the content descriptors are:
“# Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages
Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood
Blood - Depictions of blood
Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor”
(esrb.org)
Content descriptors are summarizing warning to parents since video game developers have a contract with the E.S.R.B to rate ever single piece of content that will appear in the final retail store game (esrb.org). Additionally, the only legal contracts to help enforce the ratings are between the game industry and the E.S.R.B; the government has no law enforcing the rating of games. The ESRB works closely with retailers and game centers to:
“a) provide in-store signage which explains the rating system; b) support their store policies pertaining to the sale or rental of Mature-rated games to minors; and c) help educate and train store associates and employees with regard to the rating system.” (esrb.org)
Study results (Conclusion):
At the end of it all, whether ratings or content descriptors are in place, scientific studies show that the influence between the violence on video games and the gamers is minimal. According to a study by Mark Griffiths between different gamer age groups is was “found no relation between aggressive behavior and violent video games”(Griffiths 203-212). Many other studies have attempted to figure out the entire outcome of violent video games; even the latest research done by Vince Mathews found little correlation (through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI’s)) between the Violent game and the gamers Mathews found that there was only a small arousal in the brain but due to the lack of time in the study, no real conclusion can be found, and it will take a few more years after concrete data can be collected (msnbc.msn.com).
Camilo Diez's Personal Page
THE FOLLOWING IS MY PAPER ABOUT THE ON-GOING DEBATE OF VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
Camilo Diez
CCT205H5
Dr. Gail Benick and Michael Jones
February 5th, 2009
Video Game Violence: The Ongoing Debate
The Debate (Parents Side):
Children, kids, and teenagers in North America make up a generous part of the consumers for one of the most profitable industries: the popular Video industry; last year alone bringing in a record breaking 21.3 billion dollars (USA TODAY). Though the young population may be what they call their consumers, it is for the most part their parents that pay for the video games and consoles. This is why after video game developers decided to go from Mario bros. to Duke Nukem (or similar games); parents became more aware of what kinds of violence their kids were being exposed to. Just like any war between countries, the kids were stuck in the middle as their parents fought to take down some games of the shelves such as Grand Theft Auto because it is “Extremely violent and wildly popular”, while developers tried to contain the parents (cbsnews.com). In the meanwhile the government trying to satisfy both sides, decided to come out with a set of regulation and game ratings called the “E.S.R.B (Entertainment Software Rating Board)” (esrb.org).
The restrictions were satisfactory for the most part as it forced video game retail stores to only sell games depending on the age group that the young person was part of. Even after coming to a somewhat peaceful conclusion, parents and scholars today still argue that video games continue to become more and more violent. They argue that game violence is reflected on the viewers and it can be dangerous as U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said “its among the top three causes of family violence” (McMaster University).
The Debate (Video Game Developers):
For the most part, video game developers argue that the visual representations, or graphics of people, are simply to entertain the mind from stress and offer an escape to an alternate reality. Basically, what they create is for the purpose of entertainment, it is not to train children to kill people, or to teach teens about how cool it can be to be in the army. A reason why video game developers don’t get side tracked with allegations of all games being violent is because “positive aspects of gaming - creativity, community, self-esteem, problem-solving - are somehow less visible to nongamers”(wired.com). Moreover, video game companies complied with placing ratings on the boxes and warning parents about the contents of the game, so why are parents still buying violent games for their kids? It can only be the doing of parents or stores that are not following the rules and laws, therefore they Developers are not responsible for what happens to kids when they get their hands on a copy of Call of Duty 5 or Left 4 dead. Now the question is, how can any mistakes or arguments be settled so that everyone is happy?
The Rating system (E.S.R.B):
The rating system E.S.R.B is the main non-profit organization that tries to control the content in computer and console games. The E.S.R.B tries to inform, “consumers, especially parents, [so they] can make an informed purchase decision” (esrb.org). Even though the company has made a huge impact on the purchase of video games, because they place rating symbols and content descriptors, it is still not 100% enforced by the law for stores or parents to follow them. The rating symbols are simple and easy to follow, the list goes as such:
“ESRB Rating Symbols
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
RATING PENDING
Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)”
(esrb.org)
The rating symbols are in the most part based on the age of the consumer, yet with the complexity of content in video games today it seem as though the descriptions/ratings are vague. At the beginning most games came with just a rating symbol but because it was not enough to inform parents about what their kids are about to play the E.S.R.B decided to place content descriptors at the back of all video games. A few of the content descriptors are:
“# Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages
- Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood
- Blood - Depictions of blood
- Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
- Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
- Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
- Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor”
(esrb.org)Content descriptors are summarizing warning to parents since video game developers have a contract with the E.S.R.B to rate ever single piece of content that will appear in the final retail store game (esrb.org). Additionally, the only legal contracts to help enforce the ratings are between the game industry and the E.S.R.B; the government has no law enforcing the rating of games. The ESRB works closely with retailers and game centers to:
“a) provide in-store signage which explains the rating system; b) support their store policies pertaining to the sale or rental of Mature-rated games to minors; and c) help educate and train store associates and employees with regard to the rating system.” (esrb.org)
Study results (Conclusion):
At the end of it all, whether ratings or content descriptors are in place, scientific studies show that the influence between the violence on video games and the gamers is minimal. According to a study by Mark Griffiths between different gamer age groups is was “found no relation between aggressive behavior and violent video games”(Griffiths 203-212). Many other studies have attempted to figure out the entire outcome of violent video games; even the latest research done by Vince Mathews found little correlation (through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI’s)) between the Violent game and the gamers Mathews found that there was only a small arousal in the brain but due to the lack of time in the study, no real conclusion can be found, and it will take a few more years after concrete data can be collected (msnbc.msn.com).
Works Cited
"Game Ratings & Descriptor Guide." Esrb.org. Ed. ESRB. 27 Jan. 2009 <http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp>.
Griffiths, Mark. (1999) Violent Video Games and Agression: A Review of the Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. v 4, n 10, 203-212.
Janushewski, Derrick, and Myna Truong. "Video Games and Violence." Violent Effects and Limiting Conditions. McMaster university. 26 Jan. 2009 <http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/stpp4C03/ClassEssay/videogame s.htm>
Kalning, Kristin. "Does game violence make teens aggressive? - On the Level- msnbc.com." US & World News - msnbc.com- msnbc.com. 8 Dec. 2006. 26 Jan. 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/>.
Morales, Tatiana. "Grand Theft Auto Under Fire." CBS news 14 July 2005. 23 Jan.2009<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/earlyshow/living /parenting/main708794.shtml>.
Snider, Mike. "Video game sales hit record despite economic downturn." USA Today 15 Jan. 2009. <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2009-01-15-video- game-sales_N.htm>
Wright, Will. "Dream Machines." Wired Apr. 2006. 28 Jan. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/wright.html>.